dagblog - Comments for "Hey, Detroit. It's Only Art"

In my original post, I began

Elusive Trope — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:05:04 +0000

In my original post, I began with "my initial reaction" and had contemplated whether to qualify that with the kind of emotional state I was in as I wrote it. As in my initial reaction was definitely filtering through a rather negative emotional place.

People come to a blog or a painting or performance piece with a whole mix of emotions, agendas, and reasons. To paraphrase Rumsfeld: one doesn't get to blog with the readers one wants, one blogs with the readers one has.

I agree with you that we need all kinds of art, and big museums have a positive role to play in communities. But as I read your blog, I had the reaction that I did, and I commented in the comment section about that reaction. I still feel the basic point that what is truly important to a community / society is not any particular piece of art, whether it is by someone like Picasso or van Gogh or joe blow, but that the people of that community are engaged in the artistic process.

I have not been to Detroit (although these days I am less than five hour drive from there). While I support the efforts of those in Detroit, I am about emotionally invested in what happens there as the people of Detroit are emotionally invested in what is happening in my little section of the rust belt. We don't have anything like the DIA and I don't think anyone in Detroit is losing any sleep over that. Not that I would expect them to. Nor do I begrudge them their focus on their community rather than mine.

What is happening to the DIA is removed from my life by a few notches. To me, and probably a lot of people out in there in the blogosphere who have never and probably never will visit Detroit, the crisis with the DIA is another news items, abstract and nothing more than some words on the web, along with some photos.

This is a problem with dealing with local issues on a blogosphere that is geographically global, as all things on the web potentially are. It is easy for those removed from the specific place to turn a news item into an intellectual exercise, even for just nothing more than doing that is a form of time-killing entertainment.

It is pretty easy for me to jump to the notion: there are artists around the world who are sitting in prison because their works have angered the people in power, so why should get all upset that someone is going to move this Picasso painting from this place to that place.

I will end by saying that I've had the luck to be able to travel to places like NYC, Paris and Florence a couple of times in my life, as well as living in a metropolitan place like Seattle, and so have been able to see some of the great works of art. I feel as if everyone would be the better if they could spend an nice afternoon at the Rodin museum or exploring the Duomo cathedral. But I also believe that if someone never makes it to those places (like I have never been to Berlin), the kind of better off that can be achieved with encounters with art at those places can still be achievable some other way.

Most of us aren't world

Ramona — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:58:32 +0000

In reply to I never meant to imply that

Most of us aren't world travelers so being able to view great works of art where we live is pretty inspiring. I see a need for all art, whether it's fine art, trash art, butterflies in a cloudy sky, or the kind of dissident art that raises hackles and stays with us forever.

Some of my most wondrous moments came in the big museums and libraries in Detroit. They were and are magical worlds for many people. There is room for all art in our lives, but you can't take away the thrill of great art in great museums. At least I can't.

I never meant to imply that

Elusive Trope — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:05:34 +0000

In reply to It depends on your definition

I never meant to imply that Detroit doesn't have a vibrant art community. I have never been there, and so have no basis to agree or disagree with such an assertion. In the point I am making, it is actually irrelevant whether it does or doesn't.

My point is not that a museum such as the DIA is counter to the artistic process, but rather it is not a necessity for a healthy, vibrant artistic community. If any museum in any place closed down, while it would be a loss, art and the artistic process would not be dead. It can and, given human nature, will continue on.

The problem, some might posit, with museums is that they tend to reinforce the idea that 1) real art, great art can only be found in a museum, and 2) only the "experts" are qualified to say what real art, great art is.

There is a similar argument in any of the artistic sectors, as in the only way you can see real theater in New York is to go off-off-Broadway. Board of Directors, Uber wealthy donors, and the mainstream media critics and reporters tend to reinforce an artistic vision that is stale and dumb-downed for the average joe.

Art becomes a commodity, seen merely through the lens of whether it will bring the crowds, and not whether it truly deserves a prominent place on the wall of museum with its corresponding seal of approval.

From the perspective of one view of art and its role in the individual and community's life, the museum as an institution is counter to the artistic process by the fact it is an institution. All institutions, in the end, seek to first and foremost, to survive, and this, some would argue, will inevitably lead it to make choices that are, in the case of art, in its survival's best interest but counter to the spirit of the art it is seeking to display.

Having not been to the DIA I am not making any case about the value and integrity of the DIA. I was merely making a more global point about museums and art. Detroit should take pride in the DIA, and all the more power to those who are trying to save it.

I have had my intense moments in a number of museums. One that has stuck with me was when I visited University of Texas' art museum in Austin. It was the only time I have been to Austin, and there was one display that was there on loan as part of a show on racism.

In a single room, there was a little shelf that ran long the wall about eye level. Propped on the shelf all along down the line was Polaroid photographs set in chronological order showing one guy's life growing up as a kid and becoming an adult. They were the typical upper middle class photos of vacations at the beach, kid birthday parties, picnics, college parties, the girlfriends, and so on. It wasn't until the end, twenty-seven years of his life, of a what appeared to be a privileged life (with its obvious ups and downs), that one learned he was from South Africa, and the first photograph of him as a young child was taken the year Nelson Mandela was sent to prison. The rest of the photos were taken while Mandela sat in a prison cell. The last photo was taken when Mandela was released.

Had that museum not been there, I would not have had that experience, which I think was quite profound. Maybe in part because I had been just wandering around Austin killing time, waiting for my friend who I was visiting to get off from her work. I wasn't thinking about confronting the nature of oppression, power, and perserverance of the human spirit.

I have seen Rembrandt's work, although not the Visitation, and they didn't move me like this work by a South African man whose name I cannot remember. The point being, that sometimes the museum mentality can make us get to wrapped up in the names of the artists - van Gogh, Picasso, Warhol - and not the actual experience of viewing art.

[Last note: the worst experience I had in a museum was in front of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, the painting behind glass, a throng of tourists packed and jostling in front of it, while the rest of the art around it was basically ignored. ]

It depends on your definition

Ramona — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:33:19 +0000

In reply to Actually I am not being silly

It depends on your definition of "the end of the world". Detroit has been living with severe inferiority complex for a long time now. Our pride in our art collection might seem pathetic to some, but it's essential to those who live in Detroit.

We get to tell the world that Detroit owns some wildly fabulous works by the likes of Picasso, van Gogh, Renoir, Gauguin, etc., etc., etc. The DIA owns Rembrandt's "The Visitation", for God's sake. (It's out on loan often, but once, when it was there, I went to see it. It was in a darkened room all by itself, soft lighting shining on it so that as you walked down the hall toward it you were led by the light. The effect of that painting in that setting in that art museum in the city of Detroit is still with me.)

Detroiters and anyone who can get there can come to the DIA and marvel at these treasures. There are people in and around Detroit who will never get to other museums to marvel at their treasures. I don't quite get your argument that maintaining a world-class art collection is counter to the artistic process. I see it as pure inspiration for anyone with artistic tendencies--and a necessary classroom for those in Detroit who lean that way.

Contrary to what you might think, there is a very vibrant art community in and around Detroit. Local art is big there. (Ever heard of Tyree Guyton?) All of it is inspiration for each of them.

There's something to be said for community pride. It's contagious.

I would add that the people

Elusive Trope — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:47:45 +0000

In reply to Actually I am not being silly

I would add that the people of Detroit should fight to keep the DIA works. But I don't think what is really at stake needs to be made more than it is really is (in my opinion) just to get people to rally around the DIA.

Actually I am not being silly

Elusive Trope — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:39:18 +0000

In reply to Oh, please, Trope. Now

Actually I am not being silly for silly sake. I think people's relationship to art is a very serious thing, one that makes the difference in the quality of the communities we live in.

I can say I have been tremendously more moved by the little unknown artist showing in some out of the way co-op gallery than I was at some of the 'great works of art' hanging in a musuem in Paris or New York.

As I said in the comment I posted as you posted yours, if the DIA gets to keep the works, super. But it is not the end of the world if the people of Detroit lose this or that particular painting. They can still have a wonderful and rich artistic experience, both as a creator and a spectator.

Why is this Picasso in Detroit, and that one in Seattle, and that other one in Paris, and that other one in private hands all has to do with money and connections, who had it and who didn't. And when it gets down to who gets to decide which wall the art hangs on, and thus who gets to engage it and not engage it, then it seems it something no only not-art, but counter to the artistic process.

I would add that if the DIA

Elusive Trope — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:25:16 +0000

In reply to The Parthenon scenario brings

I would add that if the DIA didn't have to sell any of the works in their collection, that would be the best outcome. And it is frustrating to see in any budget discussion, art as the first thing to get the axe, when it is usually the smallest thing on the budget. But maybe the whole ordeal can help focus the people of Detroit on making art, art that is alive for both the artist and the spectator, regardless of what particular pieces on display.

Oh, please, Trope. Now

Ramona — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:19:46 +0000

In reply to The Parthenon scenario brings

Oh, please, Trope. Now you're being silly for silly's sake.

The Parthenon scenario brings

Elusive Trope — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:10:59 +0000

In reply to Apparently, he's had a change

The Parthenon scenario brings up some of the nuance of this issue. The Parthenon is building created to be used in a particular place. It's placement in the spot it holds has a historical significance, which would be lost should it be moved. This is compared to, say, the connection between Detroit and Picasso when he painted Fruit, Carafe, and Glass. What cultural significance would there be to move the painting to Nashville. Why should the people of Detroit get to keep this painting to themselves, denying the art lovers of Nashville a chance to see this particular piece.

Apparently, he's had a change

Ramona — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:22:10 +0000

In reply to My initial reaction is that

Apparently, he's had a change of heart:

A friend writes to me—“perhaps sentimentally,” but with justice—“I can’t help but feel the anger of the grandmother, the artist, the Detroit teenager just discovering art—the regular or semi-regular museum-goer who has four or five favorite paintings and is on the cusp of discovering more, who lives in Detroit (by choice or not) and now must watch them sell those three or four works off, and everything else.”

(On a side note, I enjoy visiting Detroit, I like and admire people who live there, and I love the D.I.A. A righteous impulse blocked my own proper loyalties.)

Finally, some acute attacks have shown me the indefensibility of my position. For example, from a blogger, would I “suggest that Greece sell the Parthenon to pay its crippling national debt”? The principle of cultural patrimony is indeed germane, and it should be sacred.